What right do we have to board and inspect North Korean ships?

[Hugabear]

I can only imagine the outrage that would erupt if Russia or China were to board a US ship headed towards Israel (or any other country) to inspect it for weapons. Yet this is exactly what we're doing with North Korea. Is it any wonder that North Korea feels threatened, when we're running roughshod over their sovereignty?

[cali]

1. link please

[Hugabear]

5. Link to what?

Link to the fact that we're considering stopping and boarding their ships? Here you go...

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090528/D98F7QUG1.html

<snip>
In response, Seoul decided to join more than 90 nations that have agreed to stop and inspect vessels suspected of transporting banned weapons.
<snip>

[Richardo]

2. Sorry, you won't find me rushing to that madman's defense.

Il's paranoia has nothing to do with any perceived violations of his sovereignty. He's a fucking nutcase.

NK has been a provocative loose cannon for decades, so really a blockade is a pretty low intensity measure to control them, compared to the alternatives.

[Hugabear]

3. Blockades are considered an act of war

n/t

[cali]

8. depends. and backing out of the amistice agreement was N. Korea's move, .

[Richardo]

10. We're already at war with NK

Have been since 1950. A cease fire was negotiated in 1953, but no official cessation of conflict.

[Captain Hilts]

35. So be it.

[Recursion]

39. Yes, we're still at war with North Korea

Have been for over 55 years now.

[Seeking Serenity]

85. No, we (if you are referring to the US) are not

We never have been at war with NK. South Korea was and still is at war with NK.

[WilliamPitt]

4. Ditto

[Hugabear]

6. It's a matter of principle

IF we want to go that route, then we should at least get a UN resolution authorizing it.

Otherwise, what's to stop Russia & China from stopping and inspecting US ships the next time there's a Israeli-Gaza conflict? They could very well make the same arguments that we're making.

[shadowknows69]

16. Agree, the change I voted for includes stopping the policy of unilateral action.

[Richardo]

19. What's unilateral about a 90-nation coalition?

[Hugabear]

23. Isn't that the same argument that BushCo gave for his Iraqi invasion?

n/t

[cali]

30. bwahahahaha. yeah, it's exactly like bush. not.

[Captain Hilts]

36. This guy IS the loose cannon that GWB tried to convince us Hussein was. nt

[Posteritatis]

49. LOL! UNSC resolutions are unilateral now? (nt)

[cherokeeprogressive]

47. What's to stop China and Russia from stopping and inspecting US ships?

Big Boom Boom.

[cali]

51. aaargh. russia and china are not going to stop U.S. ships over this

they too are more than a little concerned about the N.Korean actions of late. And they've made that clear.

[Hugabear]

53. Nobody said Russia & China would do it now - but what about the future?

Let's say that Israel does decide to take unilateral action against Iran, or that Netanyahu decides to launch a full-scale military assault against the Palestinians - both of which really aren't that far-fetched ideas. Would Russia or China be justified in stopping US ships and searching them for weapons? If not, then please explain why.

And don't just answer with "they're not going to do that". I want to hear a good explanation WHY they wouldn't be justified in doing so.

[cherokeeprogressive]

59. 100% Agreement.

I was just havin' a little fun.

[malaise]

7. He may well be a madman but so are those

who believe you can board another nation's ships. American foreign policy is beyond madness - ask the rest of the planet.

[cali]

11. The U.S.. and dozens of other countries- 89 to be exact

this is hardly just an American concern. And we aren't boarding N.Korean ships.

[Hugabear]

24. Again - that's the same argument Bush used regarding Iraq

Don't know if he had 89 other nations, but he did line up plenty of other countries to lend "support" in order to justify his actions.

[cali]

32. no, it's not like bush and iraq.

sorry, but other nations are just as concerned with N. Korea and their actions of late as the U.S. is. Those countries inclued Russia nd China among others.

[Hugabear]

40. Then it shouldn't be any problem to get a proper UN resolution passed, should it?

n/t

[cali]

45. Resolution 1540. n/t.

[Hugabear]

54. That's a pretty vague resolution there

Please quote the specific passage in that resolution where it authorizes the stoppage, boarding, and inspection of ships in international waters. Or failing that, please provide any UN resolution that specifically calls for the boarding and inspection of North Korean vessels in international waters.

[cali]

56. yes, it's a vague and BROAD resoloution

look, this is not about the U.S. v N. Korea. I underestand that you know less than nothing at all about this issue, but a little homework would help you out. You want to make it into something it's not without knowing anything at all. That's just absurd.

[Captain Hilts]

37. Correctamundo. Japan, Korea, Taiwan etc. would support and participate. nt

[Richardo]

12. Blah blah blah

Thank you, Amy Goodman.

[Captain Hilts]

34. We'd be doing the Korean people - North and South - a favor to be forceful with this idiot. nt

[cboy4]

9. North Korea doesn't play by the rules, so they get to be

treated like the suspicious and dangerous little children that they are.

North Korea creates its own problems, and if it feels threatened, it has nobody to blame but itself.

[shadowknows69]

And we do? Sorry, when we gain back the moral high ground, probably decades from now

Then we can be the arbiters of who is dangerous, suspicious children again.

[cboy4]

29. Sorry. The rule-breakers are no longer in the White House.

You can feel any way you want, but you certainly don't speak for me.

I fully support our military efforts in regard to North Korean ships.

[Raskolnik]

58. The Bush administration's failings do not mandate that we turn off our brains.

NK is playing a remarkably dangerous game, and there are not many good options to deal with them.

Putting our hands in our pockets and hoping that the problem goes away is not one of the better options, in my opinion.

[MannyGoldstein]

13. What Right Did We Have To Attack Germany in WWII? nt

[Richardo]

14. They declared war on us after we declared war on their ally Japan in December 1941

So our declaration of war on Germany was defensive. Next question.

[MannyGoldstein]

60. Last Time I Checked, We're Still At War With North Korea

No?

[Richardo]

63. Right. I have to confess I mis-read the tone of your post.

Mea culpa. :blush:

[Seeking Serenity]

86. No, we, the United States, are not. (n/t)

[zorahopkins]

15. North Korea Attacking US Ships?

Some have asked whether N. Korea would carry out its threat to attack U.S. ships.

I think not. We now have an administration dedicate to PEACE through engagement and negotiation, and NOT through agressive, warlike means.

It was the evil, illegal, and totally corrupt Bush/Cheney regime that engaged in saber-rattling and wars of agression against other sovereign nations. Bush/Cheney and all of the cronies and thugs in that eight-year-long nightmare of tyranny and corruption took real delight in war-mongering and bullying other nations.

Now, though, we have an administration that really understands that peace comes not at the end of a rifle but through extending hands to others. Our beloved President, Barack Obama, understands the importance of reaching out to countries like North Korea, and engaging them in meaningful dialogue. And President Obama understands that the US is, and has been, the cause of most of the world's conflict over the past few years.

I am quite sure that, after President Obama makes it clear that the US has NO war-like intentions towars North Korea, and after President Obama begins the process of ENGAGING North Korea in meaningful talks aimed at understanding the legitimate grievances of North Korea, peace WILL prevail. President Obama is dedicate to bringing the world closer to a new day of PEACE, prosperity, gender equality, justice, and love!!

[Captain Hilts]

41. I double dog dare them. nt

[Obamanaut]

84. Well, they did shoot down an unarmed Navy aircraft in the late 60's

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/thedailymirror/2009/04/north-korea-downs-navy-plane-dodgers-win.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EC-121_shootdown_incident


edited to add a couple of links

[kentuck]

17. The same right they have to sell nuclear materials to rogue groups...

Somebody has to keep an eye on them and us.

[JVS]

18. Why should we even bother. Russia, China, S Korea, and Japan have a bigger interest in this issue.

Let them deal with N Korea.

[cali]

20. treaties with Japan and S. Korea. that simple.

[JVS]

21. Japan and S Korea should quit mooching off of us for security

[cali]

28. yeah, let them develop their own nukes. n/t

[virginia mountainman]

50. South Korea... Japan

Could easily handle the North, this is not counting the Norths "maybe maybe not" workable nuke weapon.

This is 2009, not 1950, times are very different on the Korean Peninsula now.

The North Korean military is antiquated and on the brink of collapse, whereas the South Korean forces are modern superb. This is why they want nukes so bad, they know their own weakness in light of the South Koreans.

We are their, mainly as a deterrent to China..

We had an exercises with the South, a few years ago, the North Koreans panicked,thought that the exercise was a prelude to war, and sent their tanks and troops to the border.... They left about 1/3 broken down on the road, on the rush down, and it took them MONTHS to get the fuel, and parts to get them all back to the barracks..

This is what happens when your mechanized army is based on a 1960's Soviet Modal, down to the T34 and T55/65 tanks, in the year 2009.. Yes, those numbers represent the years those tanks entered service, with the Red Army.

They would be easy pickings for the South Koreans....

The REAL WILD CARD in all of this is Japan... Japan is what really scares China, they have a long history of hating one another, If NK Nukes, make Japan feel threatened, which they WOULD, the Japanese are libel to start building their own...And if Japan decides to have nukes, no one will stop them, and they will have them within a year. I can promise you that that would scare the NK'ers and make China very nervous.

Maybe what the area needs is a militarily resurgent Japan. Maybe the threat of Japanese nukes, would cause China to really get involved with the NK's nuke ambitions.

[shadowknows69]

22. Oh yeah and we're all about honoring treaties these days

[rockymountaindem]

26. So let's bail on all our allies then?

I'm really glad DUers don't make our foreign policy.

[cboy4]

31. Yea, we'd be back in the stone ages if that were to happen.

[rockymountaindem]

43. Nice to see there's something we can agree on n/t

[cali]

27. and obama isn't bush. are you suggesting that obama should abandon

treaties unilaterally?

[smirkymonkey]

61. I agree with you.

Why do we always have to be the world's caretaker. I think we should wait and see how it plays out instead of always being the first to stick our noses in every conflict that goes on around the world.

[ejpoeta]

25. we're murika... we can do whatever we want, didn't you know.

[cali]

38. sorry, that has nothing to do with this situation. n/t

[ejpoeta]

52. sure it does. we think that we have the right to do whatever we want

simply because we are america.

[Raskolnik]

69. Do you think "we" are in the wrong in the present situation with NK? n/t

[Captain Hilts]

33. They have shot rockets at their neighbors and have also threatened them. THAT gives us the right.nt

[Hugabear]

44. When did this happen?

When did North Korea shoot rockets at their neighbors? I'm unaware of any North Korean missile attacks against South Korea or Japan. If you're talking about their missile tests, that's not exactly "shooting rockets at their neighbors" is it?

As for threats, they've been doing that for years, it's all part of their propaganda and attention-getting routine. If we're going to base our policy on rhetoric, then why shouldn't we be taking action against Iran as well?

[Captain Hilts]

46. They certainly did shoot missiles at Japan. Didn't hit, but they shot them.

They have engaged in other espionage in South Korea through infiltration and kidnapping people.

[Hugabear]

55. Did North Korea actually target Japan with those missile tests?

Or did they simply fly over Japan?

[slackmaster]

42. The subject of maritime law is complex but port states have strong powers to interdict suspect ships

Here's what the Candian government has to say on the subject:

http://www.international.gc.ca/arms-armes/isrop-prisi/research-recherche/intl_security-securite_int/keeley2004/section5.aspx

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

48. Because "bring it on" and "smoke 'em out" is an American tradition.

[Raskolnik]

57. And simplistic sloganeering as a substitute for rational thought is not useful

whether coming from Republicans, or from DU'ers.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

65. Not to mention politicians. "Change" "Hope" "Transparent Government"

[Raskolnik]

68. You don't like Obama. Fine.

But your feelings about him don't make your own rather trite observations any more valid.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

71. I don't lke bosses who send others to killl and die for nothing.

[Raskolnik]

73. And I don't like cancer or child abuse.

I'm glad we can agree on things with which no one can disagree.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

75. Yet you support the bosses who would do so?

Isn't that kind of like supporting the abuser?

[Raskolnik]

76. Again, I get it. You don't like Obama.

We aren't going to solve that here.

[tuckessee]

62. It'll be interesting to see if the US can handle North Korea w/o using nukes.

A nation that can't pacify minor resistance movements is certainly going to have trouble with tough nuts like the North Koreans.

Expect massive first use of nukes by the US after the first major US warship is sunk.

[Raskolnik]

64. This would be the type of war for which the U.S. armed forces is built.

We would be fighting a large conventional army with an abundance of manpower a very poor navy and air force. We would have nearly immediate, total air and sea dominance, and the NK's would run out of fuel reserves in short order.

Of course, they would have the ability to inflict massive casualties on SK before it was over, and they might decide to use nuclear weapons, but I think it is highly unlikely that the U.S. will be the first to use them.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

66. Yeah. That worked ever so well in Vietnam.

[Raskolnik]

67. I think that is a rather poor comparison.

First, South Koreans enjoy a pretty damn high standard of living, especially compared to the hellhole of the North, so the chances of a Korean conflict turning into a guerrilla war in which the NK's enjoy significant popular support amongst the SK's is slim to none.

Second, the Soviet Union is not going to re-form and supply the NK's. The only benefactor state NK can hope for is China, and it does not appear at all likely that NK could count on supplies coming overland through China if they instigate armed conflict.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

70. Sounds like a recipe for a Pyrrhic "victory".

They are not now without supplies. The assumption that they wouldn't be able to fight a guerrilla war is far fetched at best. i.e. The Afghans and Iraqis are beating us without much outside support.

And, if we should "win", what do we win? Much like Vietnam, Iraq, and now Afghanistan, soon Pakistan. More flowers and undying gratitude for slaughtering their people?

Or, more blood on our hands and a further step to poverty and more wars?

IMO, North Korea is sabre rattling and shouting because of internal politics. Much in the same way that Iran is doing and we have done, and continue to do.

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” H.L. Mencken

[Raskolnik]

72. No reasonable person is suggesting that going to war against NK would be desirable

or that any potential conflict wouldn't be devastating to the peninsula, at best. We should absolutely refrain from an armed response as anything but a last resort, but you've got to admit that there is a non-negligible possibility that NK's may force a last resort.

And, yes, NK *is* nearly without supplies as it stands. Their population is only kept (barely) from starvation by massive international food shipments, and they simply do not have the internal resources to maintain any sort of protracted conflict. Where will they get food and fuel in the event of a conflict that lasts more than a month?

I'm curious how you think a guerilla war would look on the Korean peninsula. Once all (and I mean all) of NK's infrastructure is smashed, what is there left for US forces to accomplish? Do you honestly think that a million malnourished, barely literate NK's are going to melt into SK and wage low-level guerrilla war against SK and US forces?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

74. What should trigger an "armed response"?

What are the criteria? We've a long history of unnecessary, and usually false, reasons for armed responses to bogeymen erected by our own "dear leaders".

As for the NK's ability to fight a guerrilla war without outside sources of supply, I recall a fellow named Mao Tse Tung who did pretty well. Not to mention a bunch of shepherds, farmers, and religious fanatics who have the "world's greatest military power" busily bankrupting itself as it chases it's tail.

[Raskolnik]

78. Well, NK launching missiles at SK, the US, or Japan would certainly qualify.

And again, you are ignoring geography to the detriment of your argument. It would be the NORTH that would be trying to invade and control hostile territory, not the other way around. If there is a conflict against NK, we would smash the hell out of all their infrastructure, repel any invasion, and cripple their war-making ability. That would be bloody, and horrible, and result in millions of casualties due to Seoul's proximity to the DMZ. Once NK is back within its borders and their missiles are either launched or destroyed, we would have no reason to try and hold and occupy NK and create the possibility of a guerrilla war.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

80. The best laid plans of mice and men....

Like all those flowers the Iraqis threw at us and the great victory achieved when we destroyed Hanoi and Haiphong.

But, all that aside, I seriously doubt that anything will come of all the sabre rattling and shouting from all sides. At least I hope the bosses aren't stupid enough to engage in another unwinnable war in Asia.

[Raskolnik]

81. You have yet to lay out a plausible scenario that implicates a guerrilla war.

And you have not rebutted my arguments as to why this is a poor comparison to Vietnam, but you still make the comparison.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

82. I find the idea that we're going to chase them back across the border implausible.

As implausible as it was the first time we fought the North Koreans. If, (a mighty big if), everything went according to plan and the North Koreans were to scamper back across the border into North Korea, I think it downright foolish to believe that they couldn't/wouldn't continue the fight with guerrillas and find the means to supply them from the North. Nor do I think that our ally would not cross the border to complete the slaughter....which would most certainly cause the survivors of the onslaught to fight a guerrilla war. And, the idea that we wouldn't support our "ally" in their endeavors is ridiculous. Not to mention that China would be unlikely to sit idly by and welcome the hordes of refugees from their neighbor with open arms.

I think the comparison with Vietnam very apt. The NLF and NVA were outnumbered by a wide margin, outgunned in every conceivable way, and there is no comparison between the supply of material and technology. Yet, they were capable of defeating us because they understood that wars are not won with body-counts and the tonnage of bombs dropped. Rather, they realized, as the Afghans and Iraqis do, that Americans have little stomach for endless (and very expensive) wars that bring nothing but an illusory "safety" from the bogeyman.

[Hugabear]

77. So you're okay with tens of thousands of American troop deaths?

Not to mention potentially over a million civilian South Korean deaths that would likely result if North Korea were to steamroll into SK, and rain artillery (and possibly chemical weapons) on Seoul?

Because we would absolutely get crushed in the initial North Korean push; our forces along the border would be little more than a speed bump. I'm sure they'd put up a valiant fight, but they're vastly outnumbered. Eventually we might be able to prevail - but at what cost?

[Raskolnik]

79. Please point out which portion of my post leads you to believe that I am "okay" with

tens of thousands of US deaths, not to mention the SK casuaties.

Recognizing the likely outcomes should an armed conflict unfortunately arise is not the same thing as advocating for that conflict.

[Posteritatis]

83. Ever notice with responses around here..

...that the phrases "So you're" and "So what you're saying is" are almost always followed by a massive straw man or red herring?

(Though honestly I'm pretty sure that's less a DU thing than a universal, if annoying, reality..)